BUSINESS vs. GOVERNMENT

PRO: The private sector is in business for profit, while the government’s purpose is to serve and protect its citizens. From this position, it is easy to see how business interests are in direct conflict with the health of the patient. Those who can pay will receive higher quality service because it increases the profit of the business of health care. Also, movies like “Sicko” accurately portray a reality that anyone who has dealt with health insurance directly experiences—health insurance is in the business of maximizing profits and paying doctors loses money for the business. The industry is in business, the entire industry fights against the patient and does whatever it can to fight paying for services: unlike, a mechanic or plumber, poor service does not lead to dissatisfaction but death.

CON: The government is a big creature. It is very easy for each of us to pull personal examples of how a standardized national policy has become a personal royal pain: difficult to reach quality customer service, often confusing red tape, programs that have confusing eligibility, etc.

TRUTH: While a government does not have the reputation for being easy to deal with, neither is the health care insurance industry. The difference is that a government program includes everybody, and is forced to remain under public scrutiny. It may be difficult to see change in the government, but we can vote in representatives to create change. There will be no “pre-existing conditions.” There are also two government health care programs, which may have critics but no one wants to see go away: Medicare and the Veteran Healthcare Administration. Those who use the VA rank it as one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Medicare is very similar to health care insurance and the VA is much more like government run health care. Neither deal with long lines or inferior service.

COST

CON: A government health care program is always at risk of becoming a behemoth. With everyone asking for more, especially when programs are free, there is always the risk of government health care to become a campaign promise which will grow the costs of operation to increase beyond the means of the government to run.

PRO: Government health care can run coordinated on a large scale. Purchasing medication in bulk, it can cut costs. Without fear of cost, Americans can spend more time in cheaper preventative health issues rather than waiting until they are seriously ill. VA physicians earn comparable incomes as civilian doctors, and are continually invested in to stay up-to-date in their training. The VA can coordinate with many other hospitals to provide the highest quality health care, which could be possible with national health care system.

TRUTH: While government health care can be more cost effective and more comprehensive than the private sector, it is always at risk of becoming cost prohibitive to the federal budget.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY PAY FOR THOSE HOW DESERVE IT

PRO: Most of America works hard. They believe in the American Dream, where sweat and ingenuity should be rewarded. A government health care system seems to spit in the face of these Americans. All of the effort and struggle they have made to better their lives seems futile when those who have not performed, tried or struggled are “given” health care — paid for by the people who did all the work. It is a demotivator and leads to the question, “why try to do more if there are no rewards?”

CON: The world is not so simple as “work hard and you will be rewarded”: it is complicated with many variables. In addition, the motivation to succeed in this world should not be based on how much MORE you have compared to other, but the pursuit of happiness. Are we really HAPPIER when others are sick and suffering?

TRUTH: The motivation to succeed is not connected to health care. It certainly isn’t measured by having better health care. Surely, no one can believe that have earned enough to find a health care insurance that does not fight tooth and nail to avoid paying for a single aspirin. Even those who feel that they deserve health care over other people are still not getting it.

GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE IS UNAMERICAN

PRO: There is definitely a spirit of individualism and entrepreneurialism in America. Part of that package is that everyone can become a millionaire tycoon or President of the United States. The other aspect of that opportunity is that every American can fail miserably and find them with nothing living on charity. It is a part of the American mindset that we must take responsibility for ourselves.

CON: We learned in the Great Depression that the frontier mindset and the mindset of the Industrial Revolution were not correct. Many hard working Americans (over 25% of the country) found themselves living in “Hoover-ville” campsites, in places like Central Park. This was not through laziness, but corporate greed. We also found that unemployment for veterans after World War I almost drove the country into anarchy and fear of another veteran unemployment terror, the government created the G.I. Bill.

TRUTH: No man is an island. We do not rely on ourselves to be vigilantes or fireman. We use and want all sorts of social services to ensure that our “community” is healthy. As John F. Kennedy said, “A rising tide raises all boats.” A healthy community starts with healthy citizens.

Why should our information be honest, factual, and accurate? The industries that are out there to provide us information—THE NEWS—has no incentive to do so. No one is willing to pay for quality investigative journalism; no one has time to read it, and no one cares when there are much more entertaining sources to get our news from.

According to Newser.com, “Nearly 39% of under-40 Americans say satirical shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are keeping viewers politically informed, and 21% believe they influence public opinion” … the Huffington Post reports, “The numbers are higher (32% vs. 42%) for the 30-to-39 set”.

But let us not blame John Stewart. The entire industry of news has shifted to “infotainment.” There are 24-hour news stations that must fill the day and keep the attention of its viewers with soft news. It has been a trend that has been increasing for almost 20 years. According to a 2001 report by Thomas Patterson, soft news increased from 35% of news content in 1980 to over 50% in 2001. Some reports claim that with the increased shift to the Internet as a primary news source, the percentage of infotainment news (which includes Op-Ed, single-source or no-source reporting, and punditry) has increased to over 70% of the average American’s news source.

In short, America doesn’t read news—it is reading opinions from smooth talking people who appease our uninformed and biased opinions. And as the world of opinion, punditry and agenda camouflages as honest and factual reporting (from all political position) the American people either lose confidence in the Fourth Estate (aka the news industry) or slip it under the table to the puppy like asparagus for the more palatable sweets lies of schlock news.

So what can our Senators do to fight back and bring honest discourse to their constituents? How do they contend with Astroturf protests and Obama-sycophants?

Simple, print up bulletized versions of the healthcare bill, and ask everyone attending to spend their two hours going through the bill with the Congressman together.

Let them rank what they like and don’t like. Give them a chance to ask questions to the words in front of them, instead of the talking points provided them.

At the moment, all we have are people who haven’t read the bill screaming to the people they voted for “you didn’t read the bill.” We have people on Medicare complaining they don’t like government health care. We have people who WANT government health care fail to understand that government money doesn’t come from a magic money tree but from tax payers.

I work in health care. I lived overseas and dealt with health care in other countries. I see the good, bad, and truth in each argument. But the solution is not to “shoot from the hip” and support a position based on ignorance or to trade in “verbal terrorism” and disrupt the democratic discourse of open-minded debate to find a solution rather than push an agenda.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=35565

Lives on altar to the flag; tears seasoning an anthem song,
Sanguine sweat never to brag; alone with thoughts that long
for a time before they knew and for sight tinted like before
Their brothers smile and cheer, pat the backs and stomp the floor.

Silently standing outside their skin, they feel hollow and grey
Keen was the enemy’s eyes, but so not as keen as they;
“By the numbers,” a sergeant hugs his beautiful beige wall
He sharpens every sense before heading down the hall.

In his pocket he keeps a live 0.22 etched with his name
the bullet meant for him, sneaking it out of the game.
A year and a half later, even now, it’s still hidden there,
still sharpening senses before heading down the stair.

Attention slack, alone in the pack, his silent screams a shroud
Hollow are the hallowed “hip hip hurrahs” of the crowd
There are twenty five million who brag of America’s might,
Behold one in four homeless, heroes forgotten in the night.

The forgotten army, lean and forlorn:
The flags in their hearts tattered and torn.
A proud Soldier stands vigil over an eternal flame
Citizens glance crooked ignoring their shame.

This information is being made available to assist veterans and schools with their planning.

**State Approving Agency has not responded to VA’s request for data.

Information for foreign schools will be posted at a later date.

The preliminary information provided in this table is in accordance with VA’s statutory requirement to determine the highest in-state, undergraduate, public tuition as specified in 38 USC 3313(c)(1)(A).  This information has no relationship to, and should not be compared with, average costs of tuition and fees of public institutions within any state commonly referred to when considering educational

The new GI Bill law allows transfer of benefits to a spouse or to children only if service members are on active duty or in the Selected Reserve (drill status) as of Aug. 1, 2009, and agrees to serve an additional four years.  The member must have served at least six years already to elect to transfer benefits to a spouse.  They must have served 10 years already transfer benefits to children.

The law is silent on whether transferability is barred if members can’t serve an additional four years because of DoD or service policy such as high-year tenure rules for enlisted and up-or-out promotion demands for officers.

Fortunately, the law also gives Defense officials broad authority to reshape transferability requirement as needed.  This month, after consulting with the services, Defense officials tentatively have decided to relax the four-year service rule when it bumps up against other policies.

The four-year service requirement would be removed for members eligible to retiree now and those who become eligible on or before Aug. 1, 2009, the day the new GI Bill begins. (Retirement eligibility means completing at least 20 years of active service or 20 years of reserve service.)

Those eligible for retirement after Aug. 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010, would have to serve only one additional year to qualify for GI Bill transferability. Those eligible for retirement after Aug. 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011, would have to serve two additional years.  Those eligible for retirement after Aug. 1, 2011 and before July 1, 2012, would have to serve three additional years to be able to transfer GI Bill benefits to family.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced today that eligible veterans will see an increase in the mileage reimbursement they receive for travel to VA facilities for medical care.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake announced today that he will use his authority to raise the mileage reimbursement from the 28.5 cents per mile to 41.5 cents per mile for all eligible veterans.

“We owe it to our veterans to give them the best care possible,” said Peake. “The increase will once again provide assistance to our veterans, especially in these difficult economic times, to help offset gasoline costs and to assist veterans with access to the VA’s world-class health system.”

Congress, which mandates such increases, recently provided funding to VA to increase the reimbursement rate, which goes into effect on November 17, 2008. Service connected veterans, veterans receiving VA pensions, and veterans with low incomes are eligible for the reimbursement.

“As I have travelled the country and spoken with many of our veterans, they have expressed the need for such an increase,” added Peake. “We are pleased to be able to provide them with the increase needed and we will continue to work with our veterans to ensure they receive the quality care they need.”

While increasing the payment, the current deductible amounts applied to certain mileage reimbursements will remain frozen at $7.77 for a one way trip, $15.54 for a round trip, and capped at a maximum of $46.62 per calendar month.  On January 9, 2009, these deductibles will decrease to $3 for a one way trip, $6 for a round trip, with a maximum of $16 per calendar month.  Deductibles can be waived if they cause a financial hardship to the veteran.

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

Enhanced VA Mortgage Options Now Available for Veterans

Of Potential Benefit to Those in Financial Distress

WASHINGTON (Oct.24) — Veterans with conventional home loans now have new options for refinancing to a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) guaranteed home loan. These new options are available as a result of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, which the President signed into law on October 10, 2008.

“These changes will allow VA to assist a substantial number of veterans with subprime mortgages refinance into a safer, more affordable, VA guaranteed loan,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake. “Veterans in financial distress due to high rate subprime mortgages are potentially the greatest beneficiaries.”

VA has never guaranteed subprime loans. However, as a result of the new law VA can now help many more veterans who currently have subprime loans.

The new law makes changes to VA’s home loan refinancing program. Veterans who wish to refinance their subprime or conventional mortgage may now do so for up to 100 percent of the value of the property. These types of loans were previously limited to 90 percent of the value.

Additionally, Congress raised VA’s maximum loan amount for these types of refinancing loans. Previously, these refinancing loans were capped at $144,000. With the new legislation, such loans may be made up to $729,750 depending on where the property is located.

Increasing the loan-to-value ratio and raising the maximum loan amount will allow more qualified veterans to refinance through VA, allowing for savings on interest costs or even potentially avoiding foreclosure.

Originally set to expire at the end of this month, VA’s authority to guaranty Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) and Hybrid ARMs was also extended under this new law through September 30, 2012. Unlike conventional ARMs and hybrid ARMs, VA limits interest rate increases on these loans from year to year, as well as over the life of the loans.

Since 1944, when home loan guaranties were offered with the original GI Bill, VA has guaranteed more than 18 million home loans worth over $911 billion. This year, about 180,000 veterans, active duty servicemembers, and survivors received loans valued at about $36 billion.

For more information, or to obtain help from a VA Loan Specialist, veterans may call VA at 1-877-827-3702 or visit www.homeloans.va.gov.

In fact, the program has to be operational long before then so that the appropriate training can be done for VA education workers, and materials can be provided to assist veterans learn how to navigate the news system. However, the VA has run into some problems.

The original goal was to create an electronic claims system that will automatically process and pay tuition, housing, and other authorized expenses. The difficulty is that each student will be subject to different tuition authorizations and living expense based on geography and their conditions of military service. It is proving to be a logistics nightmare for programmers and education service officers.

The VA sought out a private contractor, which could work quickly and efficiently to resolve the logistical issue, but failed to find any takers who could meet the deadlines required.

Keith Wilson, VA’s education service director, said none of the proposals received by VA gave him “a level of confidence they could start up by Aug. 1.”

The VA will now have to manually process education benefits claims for the new program, just as it has done for other veterans’ benefits.

The process is slower — it takes an average of 19 days to process current GI Bill claims — and might include more errors than the 98 percent accuracy rate that was expected of contractors. But it will at least provide interim benefits while VA continues to work on a fully automated benefits processing system, Wilson said.

“We have been doing benefits for a long time,” he said. “We know how to do this. We just have to flip our priorities.”

The issue is that while the new G.I. Bill is a great piece of legislation, it was not fully vetted on how it will logistically be administered. It is a perfect example of why people feel government is inept— because law makers don’t get involved with their own edicts. It is like an engineer that never checks with the factory floor to see if they have the resources, manpower, and infrastructure to create a new product.

The ultimate victim will be the veteran who just wants his education— but the VA will be blamed for not being able to deliver a product that they had no contribution in creating.

First—get this straight—capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. Democracy is a system of government and capitalism is a system of economy. You can have a communist-capitalist society (look at China) and you can also have other combinations of economic-government combination: such as democratic-socialist society, a socialist-capitalist society, etc.

Capitalism requires three components: private property, ability to earn a profit, and freedom of competition. The system of capitalism infers that when individuals can receive 100% of their rewards and the freedom to compete for customers, they will be more innovative and productive. The market competition will determine the right price and keep prices fair.

Socialism (i.e. a 100% pure socialist society) believes that all business should be considered owned by populous. The collective society should determine prices and gage those prices based on the needs of the community.

Communism (as an economic model) believes that all business should be considered owned by the government, and that wise party leaders should run everything as an oligarchy for the benefit of the greater good. The Soviet Union was both an economic and governmental communist system, with an oligarchy of party members determining what was best for the collective society. This is a significant departure from a socialist society, like many European countries, who may have democratically elected representatives from diverse political parties.

A significant difference between European socialism and theoretical socialism is revealed that not all industries are socialistically regulated. While health care, public transportation and welfare may be nationalized, most businesses do own their own company, the property, and compete on the free market.

These economic models are never pure in their application. No purely capitalist, socialist, or communist economic system exists in the world. The truth is, that most Americans would not tolerate a purely capitalist system, because it would mean that there would be no regulation on farming (the most heavily regulated industry in the country and whose federal mandates keep food costs low), communications (an industry without regulation would flood the Internet and TV with very profitable porn and family-friendless entertainment), travel (an industry where airlines and Amtrak are kept alive through government assistance), etc.

In the current credit crisis, the entire financial industry is being partially nationalized (i.e. buzzword for socialism), to prevent American capitalism from collapsing the entire country into the greatest depression in history.

When Sarah Palin and John McCain call on fear words like “redistribution” and “socialism” they are offering popcorn: words that taste good but are really empty calories without much substance. Our government survives on programs that include some socialist aspects. Nevertheless, do not confuse social programs with socialsim.

Social programs, unlikes socialism, are systems the government sets up to help Americans. Regulation is a social program to ensure that private companies are held to certain standards. Health care programs, such as Medicare, do not socialize medicine but provide a social program to provide medical care to those who can’t afford to pay for good health. Subsidizing farming ensures that private farmers can earn a living and still keep prices low for the greater population.

While Americans fear the word “socialism” as a political boogey man that lurks under the beds of every red, white and blue quilt covered bed, the reality is that it is nothing to be feared. And most of the things we label as socialist, are not socialist at all.

As Americans, we have collectively and democratically elected our statesmen to run our republic. They have been entrusted to ensure that our opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are secure. As we move into the future, our challenges and needs have changed from the days of the founding fathers. We have global economies with multi-national mega corporations. We have huge populations with advanced medical technology. We have global communications. In the past two hundred years, we have invented the train, the computer, heart transplants, and a modern industrial society.

As we burst boldly into the 21st century; we recognize that health care is not a privilege, we observe how the actions of someone in Bangkok can immediately impact the global environment, we feel the pain of how a bank in Iceland can ruin the life savings of thousands of people in Britain.

The security of that phrase “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” is no longer an individual concern, a city or county concern, but a national issue, because our federal government is able to handle the macro issues that effect all three of those covenants with Americans. It is the only community representation that has the resources to secure that promise.

Joe the Plumber may not want “the rich” to pay more taxes, because he dreams of being one of the rich someday. However, Joe the Plumber (who is neither a plumber, really named Joe, rich or pays taxes) enjoys all the benefits and securities that tax payers provide. If asked to give up those social programs he would regret his decision very quickly.

Freedom is not measured by the liberty of one man, but measured by the liberty of our nation. Health is not measured by the individual, but by the health of the republic. Happiness is not benchmarked by those who have, but by those who have not.

There are many in this country that see their personal opportunity as the only concern, and that is why they fear the word socialism, and associate any social program with socialism. It is why most Americans hate illegal immigration, but love low cost fruit and cheap sweat-shop clothing. It is a “I got mine without any help, so you need to get yours.”

Unfortunately, this myopic view overlooks just how much help the “haves” in this country owe to social programs and the support of a healthy community. They ignore how a rising tide raises all ships and a country full of healthy and happy citizens makes life better for everyone. Nothing happens in this world in a vacuum.

When people fear the word socialism, they are really fearing the word sharing. They fear that they do not have enough and they shouldn’t be asked to share what they have with anyone else. They do not see the benefits of helping others, and they do not recognize how they are helped daily by everyone around them. In short, they are selfish: no taxes, no social programs, no regulation. These are people who only hear the word “free” in freedom.

To use a baseball analogy: They are people who were born on third base and claim that they hit a triple. These are people who feel that any success they have in life started from scratch and they did it all on their own. They also feel that anyone who doesn’t meet their personal benchmark is an underachiever. To offer anything less than disdain is rewarding underachiever and punishing hard work. The irony is that the largest population of this mentality are not the millionaires, but the Middle Class who cling to stay just above the people they hate.

The people that feel social programs, who hold it up try to scare little children with the buzzwords of socialism, are Americans who are living a “from the gut” life. They, in most cases, did feel they worked hard to get where they are, but are ignorant of how much help they really had to get there (and stay there). They do not appreciate how much of social programing is embedded into their lives to keep their family happy, healthy and safe. They do not see the benefit and profit in giving opportunity to create opportunity and keeping your neighbor healthy to keep your family healthy.

Americans should see people like houses in a neighborhood. When one house becomes run down then entire neighborhoods prices fall. When one American is suffering, and can not enjoy the opportunities of all Americans, the value of all Americans are diminished. That isn’t socialism, that is Americanism.